As my gun thread got locked, I will simplify it to one question at a time.

First question:

Which is more preferrable: more laws that are weak or unenforceable, or stricter enforcement of current gun law?

Second Question: Should each and every town, city, and state be able to make its own firearms related laws that are different than the Federal Governments? If so, should they be allowed to lessen controls that the Fed has in place, or only apply more stringent laws?

Third question: If you were assaulted, would that change your opinion on gun ownership? Why or why not?

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow

This is true. However, there has not been any other item in human history that is such a field leveler as the hand gun.

How else would a 98 lb woman be able to effectively defend herself against a 225lb male attacker?

I know that there are those who think that martial arts can defeat anyone....but that is not true. Brute force and mass is an important factor in hand to hand combat.

Also, pepper spray, stun guns, ect. are considerably weaker in civilian models than military and law enforcement use.

I know from experience that being tazed or hit with pepper spray, while painful, is not necessarily incapacitating.

I am just trying to inject some honesty into the discussion. I do not understand how someone can claim equality and empowerment for women, while at the same time holding on to antiquated myths that a woman with a gun will not know how to defend herself.

A gun equalizes the situation when talking about differences in size between male and female.

'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."-James Morrow